IGF 2019 WS #182 Data Governance for Smarter City Mobility

Information

Organizer 1: Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)Organizer 2: Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)Organizer 3: Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)Organizer 4: Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

The workshop will begin with a brief introduction of the workshop goal and format as well as the challenges and possible solutions of data Governance in connection to mobility in Smart Cities that we have identified in our working group’s current research. It will be followed by three to four impulse presentations on the core challenges of data governance in Smart Cities (see speakers list above).

The round table discussions will follow the Purpose to Practice - workshop format, where the stakeholders initially shape together all the elements that will determine the success of their initiative and hence a shared purpose. All additional elements—principles, participants, structure, and practices—are designed to help achieve the purpose.

Finally, each of the round table groups presents the results of their discussion, e.g. identified conflicts of interests in data (sharing) in the context of Smart City Mobility, possible data governance solutions as well as recommendations for the relevant actors in this field (esp. urban planners, municipal administrations, civic initiatives, technology providers).

Policy Question(s):

How should data in Smart Cities be governed to foster the creation and delivery of effective, innovative and sustainable mobility and transportation services for citizens, while respecting their right to data protection and privacy as well as other fundamental rights?

How can data be (re-)used in a manner that enables the delivery of various public and private smart mobility services, innovation and fair competition in the sector?

How can the data be governed in a manner that is consistent with the Sustainable Development Goals? In particular, relevant goals are the promotion of development and innovation, the reduction of inequality as well as environmental sustainability.

Problem Statement

The UN Sustainable Development Goal 11 calls for making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable, the UN United Smart Cities initiative advocates for public policy to encourage the use of ICTs to facilitate and ease the transition to smart sustainable cities and the United Nations World Cities Report (2016) calls for new forms of collaboration and cooperation and governance for smart and sustainable cities.

This happens while two global trends stress the importance of appropriate Data Governance in this context:

First, the globally increasing urbanization and consequent challenges for urban mobility, such as the need to control traffic congestion for accessibility of the community to essential services and for the economy of cities to thrive. Reducing car emissions is both a part of climate action and a prerequisite for public health. In 2016, 91 per cent of the urban population worldwide were breathing air that did not meet the World Health Organization air quality guidelines value.

Second, the integration of Internet-of-Things technology into urban infrastructures, which inevitably collect data also on citizens, as well as that of increasingly connected cars, and general digitalization and datafication of the automotive industry and the entire mobility sector.

In the best case-scenario, data-driven public and private mobility services would harness the novel technologies in a sustainable manner. The fulfillment of this objective is conditional on the employment of appropriate data governance models. Data governance models for connected mobility in Smart Cities should foster the effective and innovation inducing reuse of data, while respecting the human rights of data subjects and citizens. Ideally, the data governance models should be transferable and modifiable across different cities.

Discussion Facilitation:

For each of the four onsite groups as well as the online participation group, moderators with experience in discussion facilitation will be identified in advance by the organizers. The participants are invited to assemble freely around the moderators and the sub-topics they represent. Should highly unequal group sizes emerge, some participants may be asked to voluntarily switch to another group. The primary responsibility of the moderators is to ensure a productive and fair discussion, with a focus on ensuring freedom from barriers, and promoting equal participation of all discussants. In addition, the groups should each elect one rapporteur is responsible for the presentation the results of the group discussion in conclusion of the session. The groups may also choose to have more than one rapporteur or moderator.

Online Participation:

In order to make the onsite discussions available to participants who are unable to physically attend, we are planning to use the video conferencing tool provided by IGF to broadcast the impulse presentation as well as enable participation in the breakout discussions. Our online moderator will be responsible to coordinate the online and onsite interactions, and facilitate online participation in the discussions.

Introduction of the workshop goal and format, as well our working group’s research on data governance in connection to Smart City mobility.

Impulse presentations of the core challenges of data governance in Smart Cities

Round table 70 min

4 Round table break-out discussions on:

Data protection and privacy

Political accountability and transparency

Human Rights and Inclusion

Innovation, Competition and Incentives

Technical Infrastructure and Interoperability

Closing Remarks 5 min

We connect the outcomes of the round tables for a holistic outlook on data governance solutions in the context of Smart City mobility.

Report

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations:

How should data in Smart Cities be governed to foster the creation and delivery of effective, innovative and sustainable mobility and transportation services for citizens, while respecting their right to data protection and privacy as well as other fundamental rights?

How can data be (re-)used in a manner that enables the delivery of various public and private smart mobility services, innovation and fair competition in the sector?

How can the data be governed in a manner that is consistent with the Sustainable Development Goals? In particular, relevant goals are the promotion of development and innovation, the reduction of inequality as well as environmental sustainability.

2. Discussion Areas:

There was strong agreement among everyone that the primary principles to follow are the protection of privacy, especially for marginalized groups, while at the same time allowing for the benefits of innovation for efficiency and sustainability, for example in traffic management. A less consensual and unclearer, yet important principle is that of "data sovereignty". It is also clear that individual data sovereignty may be limited by collective or public interests sometimes. Finally, transparency on the part of any data holders and users is a must, whether they are private or public, to ensure accountability and to prevent cases of corruption. These principles together function as "boundary conditions", a term introduced by one speaker, for both the development and governance of any data-driven technology. These boundaries are formalized in technical and legal standards, and while actors can and should influence these standards, they must follow them once set. There was also consensus that there should be in principle equal access to data-driven services, and some pointed out that there should be equal access to data as well. It was pointed out that intersectionality needs to be considered already in the design of services to ensure the safety and equal opportunities of all groups of people - this became apparent for example when the workshop participants considered exclusion of BIPoC, non-binary or transgendered persons, notably even at the IGF itself. Participants also noted that in order to to determine responsibilities it is vital to ask "who gets control of what data"?. There was no clear general answer to this, but it was agreed that public and private models each have advantages and disadvantages. Methodologically, it also became clear that it is important to first gain a common understanding about the types of data that are discussed.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Sustainability, Equality and Protection of Fundamental Rights especially for marginalized groups were identified as overarching goals for policymaking. The conflicts of interests between actors fall into the economic, political and social domain: In economic terms, commercial actors may be reluctant to share data for fear of losing their competitive advantage, especially because data has anti-competitive tendencies. Data sharing should however be encouraged to enhance competition and innovation, and to maximize welfare. Here, we need better data governance models to resolve the conflicts, and sometimes state intervention in data markets. In the social realm, data sharing may create new dangers for privacy, and intensify existing social inequalities. This issue is connected to technological challenges that arise from the possibility of recombining anonymised data. To confront this danger, should therefore foster citizen participation and transparency in the design of services and the governance of data, addition to the application of suitable privacy legislation.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

Several initiatives are developing data governance models to address the issues at hand, from commercial actors in many industries (for example automotives or health) to municipal actors in smart cities, non-government actors for example with an eye on inclusive design to geopolitically motivated initiatives like EU-wide data sharing ecosystems.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Data Governance models, understood as legal, organizational and social norms which regulate the sharing and use of data in complex constellations of actors, are needed to resolve the common conflicts of interests. Another important measure is making design processes more participatory and generate awareness of intersectionality and possible discriminations.

6. Estimated Participation:

60 onsite; 25 women; 4 persons online

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

There was an unusually high awareness for gender topics throughout the workshop. This was supported by the intervention of a trans woman on the panel and by gender-supportive moderation and agenda-setting of the workshop organizers.